(Original post by CHayes)
In your position I'd choose Sheffield for insurance; it's very similar to Leeds as a university. In terms of which one's better for maths though, I imagine Sheffield and Lancaster are pretty much the same.

Yeah they are pretty similar which is the problem!!
Its all down to location really....lancaster is in the countryside-ish but sheffield's in the city centre...

I got my mark breakdowns for the January exams today (both edexcel) and on C3 I got 47/75 which admitadly isn't great but was still 63%, however I only got 53 UMS (D).
Similarly on D1 I got 55/75 which was 73% but I only got 58 UMS (D)......
And on FP1 I don't know what mark I got but to get an A you needed 69/75...

These all seem vv high!! What do people think?
Also, shouldn't percentages convert better to UMS?

(Original post by BeccaCath94)
I got my mark breakdowns for the January exams today (both edexcel) and on C3 I got 47/75 which admitadly isn't great but was still 63%, however I only got 53 UMS (D).
Similarly on D1 I got 55/75 which was 73% but I only got 58 UMS (D)......
And on FP1 I don't know what mark I got but to get an A you needed 69/75...

These all seem vv high!! What do people think?
Also, shouldn't percentages convert better to UMS?

Is anyone else thinking of doing mathematics/mathematics and statistics at imperial college london? if so, what gcse grades did you get? and what alevels are you doing? etc
just want to check out my competition

(Original post by CHayes)
I'm afraid you're confusing raw marks with UMS marks. 73% UMS marks is a B, but as you've said your 73% raw marks has been scaled to 53% UMS marks, which is a D unfortunately.

I know what you're saying, but surely the two should be pretty similar or not as drastically different as they are?

(Original post by BeccaCath94)
I got my mark breakdowns for the January exams today (both edexcel) and on C3 I got 47/75 which admitadly isn't great but was still 63%, however I only got 53 UMS (D).
Similarly on D1 I got 55/75 which was 73% but I only got 58 UMS (D)......
And on FP1 I don't know what mark I got but to get an A you needed 69/75...

These all seem vv high!! What do people think?
Also, shouldn't percentages convert better to UMS?

Its safe to say i'm resitting both of these...

I've heard the edexcel papers are supposed to be pretty easy (for maths) compared to the other boards which is why they seem to have routinely ridiculous rawscore to UMS conversions. TBH the current exam system sucks, maths exams are so easy (certainly the core a-level) that any reasonably intelligent student who has done proper prep comes into the exam expecting to be able to answer every question fully. IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS. Even GOOD students should find several questions per paper they just cannot do so we can have proper differentiation at the top end. Really they should just make everyone sit an AEA like paper and obviously have lower grade boundaries in terms of rawscore (just look at the score distribution and set boundaries so that a similar proportion of people attain the same grade as they currently do). Maybe throw in a couple of easier starting questions to make the paper a bit more accessible, but lets face it, the current maths a level is too easy.

Currently attaining the A* is a little bit of a lottery as (depending on the grade boundaries) just a couple of simple arithmetic slips/transcription errors in unfortunate places can lead to enough marks being deducted to fall into the top A-grade band. This is especially true in FM where the competition is tougher. The simplicity of the current examinations makes it so that top mathematicians are in direct competition for the A* with merely hardworking and dedicated moderately talented mathematicians (yes we all have met people like this-and what makes it worse is that they usually think they are super smart because they can get most of the questions right in the oh so easy core maths a-level). It becomes a game of who can make the least mistakes, rather than a judgement of peoples abilities to think clearly to solve challenging problems with elements that you perhaps have not explicitly studied, but of course whose answer can be determined solely with the knowledge in the curriculum, and a bit of logic.

As you can probably tell, i'm all for reverting to a tougher exam system when a B was actually valued- lets face it, as it is, a B is a genuine failure for anybody reasonably intelligent who has prepared properly for an exam. This clearly isn't how it should be.

(Original post by In One Ear)
I've heard the edexcel papers are supposed to be pretty easy (for maths) compared to the other boards which is why they seem to have routinely ridiculous rawscore to UMS conversions. TBH the current exam system sucks, maths exams are so easy (certainly the core a-level) that any reasonably intelligent student who has done proper prep comes into the exam expecting to be able to answer every question fully. IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS. Even GOOD students should find several questions per paper they just cannot do so we can have proper differentiation at the top end. Really they should just make everyone sit an AEA like paper and obviously have lower grade boundaries in terms of rawscore (just look at the score distribution and set boundaries so that a similar proportion of people attain the same grade as they currently do). Maybe throw in a couple of easier starting questions to make the paper a bit more accessible, but lets face it, the current maths a level is too easy.

Currently attaining the A* is a little bit of a lottery as (depending on the grade boundaries) just a couple of simple arithmetic slips/transcription errors in unfortunate places can lead to enough marks being deducted to fall into the top A-grade band. This is especially true in FM where the competition is tougher. The simplicity of the current examinations makes it so that top mathematicians are in direct competition for the A* with merely hardworking and dedicated moderately talented mathematicians (yes we all have met people like this-and what makes it worse is that they usually think they are super smart because they can get most of the questions right in the oh so easy core maths a-level). It becomes a game of who can make the least mistakes, rather than a judgement of peoples abilities to think clearly to solve challenging problems with elements that you perhaps have not explicitly studied, but of course whose answer can be determined solely with the knowledge in the curriculum, and a bit of logic.

As you can probably tell, i'm all for reverting to a tougher exam system when a B was actually valued- lets face it, as it is, a B is a genuine failure for anybody reasonably intelligent who has prepared properly for an exam. This clearly isn't how it should be.

Anyway, sorry for that. Rant over.

Basically you're suggesting a return to the old-system. Which I support. The current system is too easy imo.

(Original post by f1mad)
Basically you're suggesting a return to the old-system. Which I support. The current system is too easy imo.

Mm I concur. When tonnes of people can get 100% then I think it's too easy (some people who aren't even very good at maths seem to get 100 in some of the core units). It would make sense to stretch people so you can only 100% an exam if you're truly exceptional - the way it is there's no differentiation at the top end of students, especially for maths.

(Original post by hassi94)
Mm I concur. When tonnes of people can get 100% then I think it's too easy (some people who aren't even very good at maths seem to get 100 in some of the core units). It would make sense to stretch people so you can only 100% an exam if you're truly exceptional - the way it is there's no differentiation at the top end of students, especially for maths.

Agree totally! I found an old book of F Maths Pure past papers the other day and gave it to my son who is doing F Maths this year. He reckoned that over half of the old syllabus either isn't on the new one at all or the level of detail is much less. There's some nice analysis stuff in there, injection bijection and surjection, Taylor / Maclauren series in lots of detail, hyperbolic functions, group theory ... The old syllabus gave a much better idea of what university maths looked like because it actually introduced some of the topics. Also double As at double maths were quite rare, as opposed to the scarily large amount of university places this year asking for A*A* as standard.

I feel really sorry for people sitting A level nowadays who are working their socks off and then have to listen to my generation going on about how it's 'easy' to get high grades now compared to 25 years ago. It's NOT easy, a couple of silly transcribing errors or swapping a '-' sign can be a death knell for an A*, neither of which have anything to do with mathematical ability, because there is so little on the paper to differentiate between the top candidates It might be technically easier to get an A grade now, but it is also so much easier to slip a grade because as you can see from the raw score => UMS conversion tables, sometimes the difference between an A and a D can be as little as 10 raw marks.

As a comparison, I went to Manchester 25 year ago to study Mech Eng. My offer grades were BCC. This year for the same course it's AAB. The A levels are supposed to be for differentiating candidates for University entry.

(Original post by In One Ear)
I've heard the edexcel papers are supposed to be pretty easy (for maths) compared to the other boards which is why they seem to have routinely ridiculous rawscore to UMS conversions.

Edexcel isn't as popular as OCR and AQA, these two have more examination entries. And remember that in a smaller population there will be less weaker candidates to lower boundaries. I agree that their exams are easier somewhat but they do cover more content than others outside of C1-4, for example AQA's FP4 makes up only a third of Edexcel's FP3.

(Original post by KittyKattyKaity)
Agree totally! I found an old book of F Maths Pure past papers the other day and gave it to my son who is doing F Maths this year. He reckoned that over half of the old syllabus either isn't on the new one at all or the level of detail is much less. There's some nice analysis stuff in there, injection bijection and surjection, Taylor / Maclauren series in lots of detail, hyperbolic functions, group theory ... The old syllabus gave a much better idea of what university maths looked like because it actually introduced some of the topics. Also double As at double maths were quite rare, as opposed to the scarily large amount of university places this year asking for A*A* as standard.

I feel really sorry for people sitting A level nowadays who are working their socks off and then have to listen to my generation going on about how it's 'easy' to get high grades now compared to 25 years ago. It's NOT easy, a couple of silly transcribing errors or swapping a '-' sign can be a death knell for an A*, neither of which have anything to do with mathematical ability, because there is so little on the paper to differentiate between the top candidates It might be technically easier to get an A grade now, but it is also so much easier to slip a grade because as you can see from the raw score => UMS conversion tables, sometimes the difference between an A and a D can be as little as 10 raw marks.

As a comparison, I went to Manchester 25 year ago to study Mech Eng. My offer grades were BCC. This year for the same course it's AAB. The A levels are supposed to be for differentiating candidates for University entry.

If you're an engineer then you have no place on this thread

Also, when was scarily large considered to be three?

(Original post by ben-smith)
boo hoo, if you find a-level maths boring/easy do some other maths. I'm told the internet has some.

It's fairly ironic that this discussion arose because I was trying to explain to someone why they got a D instead of a B

(Original post by snow leopard)
Edexcel isn't as popular as OCR and AQA, these two have more examination entries. And remember that in a smaller population there will be less weaker candidates to lower boundaries. I agree that their exams are easier somewhat but they do cover more content than others outside of C1-4, for example AQA's FP4 makes up only a third of Edexcel's FP3.

And fewer stronger ones to raise them? I.e., overall, it should make no difference, except that with a smaller population you can expect more variance year on year in terms of cohort strength.

Yeah maybe Edexcel's FM is harder, but the core maths a level is supposed to be pretty easy relatively speaking. I think the exam boards are required to regulate the difficulty of the core a-level (and in the case of edexcel's comparatively easier papers, this means raising the boundaries to compensate). On the other hand, i think the exam boards are more free to dictate the difficulty of their FM material, since not so many people take FM and its not a "core" a-level in the same sense- by and large the only people who are going to do it will be maths applicants (naturally you'll get a sprinkling of other subject applicants taking it, particularly for more quantitative courses, such as chem eng/physics/engineering etc.).

(Original post by CHayes)
If you're an engineer then you have no place on this thread

Also, when was scarily large considered to be three?

Three? Cambridge, Oxford, Warwick, Imperial, Bath and Durham all ask for A*A or even A*A* and then some, so thats already 6. Not so sure about what the likes of Bristol/UCL etc. ask for maths but its possible that some these also require an A* and an A.

(Original post by In One Ear)
I've heard the edexcel papers are supposed to be pretty easy (for maths) compared to the other boards which is why they seem to have routinely ridiculous rawscore to UMS conversions. TBH the current exam system sucks, maths exams are so easy (certainly the core a-level) that any reasonably intelligent student who has done proper prep comes into the exam expecting to be able to answer every question fully. IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS. Even GOOD students should find several questions per paper they just cannot do so we can have proper differentiation at the top end. Really they should just make everyone sit an AEA like paper and obviously have lower grade boundaries in terms of rawscore (just look at the score distribution and set boundaries so that a similar proportion of people attain the same grade as they currently do). Maybe throw in a couple of easier starting questions to make the paper a bit more accessible, but lets face it, the current maths a level is too easy.

Currently attaining the A* is a little bit of a lottery as (depending on the grade boundaries) just a couple of simple arithmetic slips/transcription errors in unfortunate places can lead to enough marks being deducted to fall into the top A-grade band. This is especially true in FM where the competition is tougher. The simplicity of the current examinations makes it so that top mathematicians are in direct competition for the A* with merely hardworking and dedicated moderately talented mathematicians (yes we all have met people like this-and what makes it worse is that they usually think they are super smart because they can get most of the questions right in the oh so easy core maths a-level). It becomes a game of who can make the least mistakes, rather than a judgement of peoples abilities to think clearly to solve challenging problems with elements that you perhaps have not explicitly studied, but of course whose answer can be determined solely with the knowledge in the curriculum, and a bit of logic.

As you can probably tell, i'm all for reverting to a tougher exam system when a B was actually valued- lets face it, as it is, a B is a genuine failure for anybody reasonably intelligent who has prepared properly for an exam. This clearly isn't how it should be.

Anyway, sorry for that. Rant over.

The Scottish system's a bit better - last year the pass rate for maths was 66% and 22% got an A. We have an end-of-year holistic exam rather than modules. I'd be interested to see how you A-levellers think the papers compare.